Pound6F

Great points BUT I think saying "checking if the prospective users are already taken" is missing a large part of it. Before Google, I used Altavista. Before Facebook, I used MySpace.

I thought those first services were great but then someone else came and executed so much better that I switch. Accept that fact that you will (almost) never have a truly unique idea and just focus on executing astronomically better than anyone else ever has.

Just so we are clear: Never actually do this.

The point of the post is that the syntax for writing html is getting better (just using 'html' as a doctype is great). But in terms of application, there is none.

If you want to write a web site/service and you want to support more users than just your friends, you have to do things right to support older browsers (and IE) and this means things like including all of the tags that FF/Chrome are automatically adding.

One of the biggest things that can get in the way of a useful debate, however, is pride.

There are a lot of employees that love to argue and, even once it is clear they are wrong, they will still argue for their point and refuse to back down.

This emerges even more around design decision when there is no clear right and wrong and two parties are battling for their ideas. Sadly, it is often said that those two argue the longest are the winners, regardless of who is right.

I would say passion and the ability to challenge everyone's ideas is extremely important, but you must combine it with humility and the ability to back down when you know you are wrong (or at least more wrong than the other).

This is a great idea and as they note its really beneficial to the power user, BUT I can't see it replacing traditional menus for novice users (and potentially some intermediate users).

For novice users, discoverabiliy is extremely important. For any application new users want to learn what it does, and they aren't going to read the manual. Traditional menus allow users to browse available actions without having to know what they want to do. They don't know what they don't know, and well designed menus/UIs allow them to learn the application really quickly.

I also wonder about the older generation and their ability to pick up on this. I would be very curious how well less technically skilled 40+-year-olds pick up on the keyboard-based navigation over the traditional mouse-based navigation/interaction.

The last part should be stressed. If you are just out to make money don't join a startup. Even employee #1 (after the cofounders) in most startups will get next to nothing in a multi-million dollar buy out. I witnessed this first hand a few months ago. People who joined the company extremely early and worked their asses off for 4 years got very little when the company sold for 20mm.

Of course money isn't everything, and the real reward in joining a startup early is to have a huge impact on the company, and potentially the world.

Reducing ad ridden sites is great, but they are doing that in a roundabout way and taking down potentially useful sites in the process.

The point is not that sites with ads at the top should be as high in the results as sites without ads, but that using such a high-level heuristic (as they claim) is a poor way to lower (or raise) the rank of a page.

Google could also do a lot more work to show you WHERE on the page your search occurs. That would do a lot more to address the problem than just lowering the rank of pages where your search is lower on the page.

I think google is going about this the wrong way. They are claiming its a bad user experience for the search term to be down on the page or not have any content at the top but (1) that is far too generic a statement to make and (2) it is not Google's responsibility to make sure pages align to a certain design standard. They are essentially adding design requirements into their search algorithm. This restricts the design of any webpage that wants to optimize its Google ranking.